The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Nothing comes ‘immediately’ to mind but I’m sure Don K. Preston on youtube probably covers it somewhere.

Hey qaz,

Time to jump into the water yourself… There is mucho info about all this all over the internet, but to be honest, a dozen really good folks can tell you truth but if you do not want to look at it, to be honest, there is nothing to be gained. A paradigm shift has to happen. It is as simple as that.

Hope the best for you :smiley:

Chad

Hi qaz,

That is my point, that the preterist perspective is a process of study. It does not come easy but don’t let that shake your belief.

I would say that we should not question our beliefs, but question the things that would challenge our beliefs. If in fact, when you take a view, (in this case the preterist view), then you either believe it (it is your belief) consider it (you question it but it does not shake your belief until you are convinced through the HS that you will adopt it as a belief) or you consider it not to be regarded as to your belief system.

As to the text which you talked about, I found five different papers on the subject within about two minutes.

Here is Preston’s take on it.

There are a couple of different books of his he mentions in this article. Hope this helps.

Chad

Preston says:

I don’t get that. The NASB says: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?

Me thinks he protesteth too much - and that in itself speaks volumes.

Hi pilgrim,

I guess the simple answer is that all the things it says will happen in Mat 16:27-28 did not happen at the account of the transfiguration. But there is a historical case that (concerning the Matthew 27-28 verse imagery) can be made in regards to the siege of Jerusalem and the destroying of the temple around 70AD. And the simplest of all answers is that Christ was going (in regard to the transfiguration), not coming back. A voice came down from heaven, but the Christ did not. :smiley:

Once again, matter of perspective. I tend to view it this way.

Thanks,

Chad

A very gracious reply Chad. Thank you and God bless you in 2016.

As for my view on preterism in general, I think Eaglesway summed it up well in post 447 here:

-and I think it is a really pessimistic view, what with the world being in such a terrible state but I love your Spirit and work for the Lord.

P.S. I’ve been curious for a while, who/what is your avatar?

Thanks pilgrim!

Hope you have a very, very good year! God Bless you and yours. I’m sure we will talk soon! :smiley:

Chad

Sorry Chad - just edited the above whilst you were replying (oops).

pilgrim, my avatar is ‘Red Will Danaher’ from the movie ‘The Quiet Man’.

My favorite movie of all time! I think it was 1952. John Wayne and John Ford at their best in my humble opinion. Thanks for asking!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask :smiley:

Best wishes,

Chad

pilgrim,

We are all in a sense preterists, in that preter means past, We all know of Christ whom was born of a virgin, lived, was crucified on a cross, died and was buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. All has happened.

I personally believe in a full preterist view, (and thus) an understanding that Christ did all that He set out to do is actually good news!!

I totally understand the hesitance of going down that road, but I have no problem with other views. To be honest, I’m not a very good debater, I’m a musician and a fixer of things, not a theologian. I have opinions, but know others do to!

I hope that helps.

Chad

For me, it is the Maltese Falcon.

I can recall all the main characters now :exclamation:

Thanx Randy!! :smiley:

Sure there was. It was the time folks would embrace **both ** John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically. :laughing:

:smiley:

I don’t get that. The NASB says: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?

IMHO another plausible explanation is that it refers to Jesus ascension which Daniel 7.13 calls the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

I’m not quite sure I know what you mean exactly by “severing nations”?

Yeah but hang on… you were questioning that there was any “scriptural evidence” as to a broad-scope “confessing that Jesus is Lord” – I simply showed you how the phrasing of Phil 2:10-11 attests that such can happen postmortem, IF THAT’S the requirement you deem necessary; you don’t have to accept what I’m saying, but as a pantelist that would be my way of dealing with your objection… by appealing to the text. And until you can demonstrate from scripture HOW “and those under the earth” somehow does NOT reference “the dead” i.e., postmortem, as would the most seem logical, and thus meet your required “confessing”, then I’d be inclined to stick with my rationale on this.

I refer you again to my comments up the page… “I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists; the only real difference between the two is the amount of torturous time said to be spent therein.

But if you look at the context wouldn’t that “POSSIBILITY” be ruled out according to the evidence supplied in the text? How is it you guys will play for an ‘argument from silence’ scenario BUT then where there is no silence, i.e., there IS ample scriptural proof to help in determining what’s happening you then conveniently and summarily dismiss it??

Example… IF Mt 16:28 WERE referring to the transfiguration, a whole 6 days following, WHERE were the attendant ANGELS and the subsequent REWARDS so naturally associated with the PAROUSIA? They simply WEREN’T there!

To be honest Pilgrim… ignoring the plain (con)text (v27) which clarifies what immediately follows (v28) to me at least seems at worst disingenuous or dishonest, or at best in itself “unbalanced”. I would really appreciate your answer to this for me, thanks.

Hi qaz
I’m not a futurist. If you think that view is even more pessimistic then I respect your opinion.

No, I made no such implication.

Hi pilgrim! :smiley:

2016 IS HERE!

You said,

I was wondering, with your answer to qaz,

…saying you are not a futurist, is my preterist view pessimistic, or eaglesway’s view of preterism the pessimistic view? :smiley:

This fascinates me. Thanks!!

I’ll get back to these questions shortly with a statement of my current viewpoint- (hopefully later today) bit rushed at the mo.